George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I see the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) standing there. This discussion about we own too much land, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) tells us this year that the demands from Members of Congress far exceed what this committee could do; that over the vast majority of this Congress go before that committee and they ask, would the Federal government please purchase this inholding, will they expand this boundary, will they provide this new section of park, will they provide this unit? That is the fact of the matter. That is the democratic process. Members of Congress represent their constituents and make these requests. In recent years, the total land mass has gone down. I think we should trade out and swap out more lands. I agree with all of that. The fact of the matter is, it is Members of Congress and Members of the Senate that believe that these acquisitions should be made, these inholdings should be bought.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be split with the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the fact is, in recent years Federal ownership of land has been going down, so that is the trend, that is the trend. Mr. Chairman, if I can finish my answer.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, a further inquiry, if I might. Could the chair tell us, my plan is to yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes, yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and then the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) has 2 minutes, I believe. Is that right? So how do we go in order here?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, they will make that decision under the democratic process, just like the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) asked us to buy Cumberland Island.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I meant to yield the remaining time to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to this amendment. This is an amendment that essentially guts this legislation, because the authors of this amendment are very much aware of how valuable the people of this Nation hold the Federal expenditures that we make under the Federal Land and Water Conservation Act. This is the program that we use to preserve the headwater forests, the great redwood forests in northern California. This is the program that we use to preserve the Baca Ranch in New Mexico, the great holdings that are supported by the people of that State, the people of the region and across this Nation to protect those lands. This is money that we use to try to protect the great Everglades, as we have tried to restore the Everglades. There is overwhelming support across this Nation for the protection of the Everglades and the augmentation of the Everglades so that we can try to clean up the water pollution problems and the other problems that we have there. That is what the Federal Land and Water Conservation Act does. It is not a matter of trading in this money for money that would go to State or suburban programs. This bill is about a balance, about a balance of the amendment that we just heard before, trying to help out counties with PILT payments, about a balance of trying to help the Federal Government meet its obligations to protect the great assets, what many people consider the wonders of the world, the Zions, the Arches, the national parks, the Grand Canyon, the Grand Tetons, Yosemite, King's Canyon, all of these areas that are so dramatic that are under threat. We have people who have areas inside of those parks who want to sell those lands who have inholdings who want to get out. This is the means by which we do that. This is very, very important. Let us not act like this is some new land rush that was $450 million. This was set back in the 1970s, this amount for Federal land acquisition. The Committee on Appropriations appropriated somewhere around $300 million or so for Federal acquisition, and they do it at the request of the Members of Congress. Elected officials walk into the Committee on Appropriations and ask, and they ask that these lands be acquired in their State, in their congressional district, as do Senators. Under this process, if those are authorized by the Congress of the United States, only if they are authorized by the Congress of the United States, and if they are submitted by the President of the United States and the Committee on Appropriations approves them and the authorizing committees approve them, then and only then will they be acquired for the people of the United States of America. Very shortly, school will be out, the summer season will start, and millions of Americans will travel across this country to see these great assets, to see what we call the crown jewels of the Federal land system. Millions of Americans will power into Yosemite, into the Grand Tetons, into the Grand Canyon, into the Everglades, into the Great Smokies. All of those parks are under threat. This is the source of revenues that we try every year to protect those and to augment others that are worthy of being in this system. Mr. Chairman, to kill this is to kill the Federal Government's ability, the Federal Government's ability to protect those resources and to enhance those resources on behalf of all Americans. It is not just that the Yosemite is in California, because people come from all over the country and all over the world. These are dynamic engines of economic activity around Yellowstone, around Yosemite, around the Everglades, and it is important that we take care of them. That is what Federal land and water conservation funding does. This amendment guts that proposal. It guts that effort. This money is erased from the bill. Mr. Chairman, it is not about trading it off, as the gentleman has said, to sprinkle it through the other programs. Those programs were funded in this legislation, in the balance, in the balance that was achieved by long, tough, difficult, bipartisan negotiations with many, many, many of the interest groups, outside interest groups, those who are concerned about national parks and fish and wildlife and habitat and hunting and fishing and all of the rest. So we ought not to gut this bill with this amendment, and I would hope that the House would overwhelmingly reject this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman, no. The appropriators have to do their share, as they are doing today, which is $135 million, or whatever. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, it is. To the extent to which we fund it, it is mandatory.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, under CARA, that share is mandatory and it will be matched by the appropriators.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, our share is mandatory.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. They go to another Federal program and get Federal dollars.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. . I think we should accept the amendment, but if the chairman would continue to work with us on this, obviously there are 50 different States with 50 different mechanisms. Some States will raise the bond issue and make all that available for this purpose. That is an honest mechanism which is real money.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. In theory, the State could conceivably say, we are now going to create a pool of $10 million, and we are asking local governments or somebody else to put in $10 million. That is $20 million. They may be entitled under the State side for $10 and they would have that match. The gentleman from Ohio is concerned, sometimes we get into these things and we go from real dollars to in-kind contributions to work efforts to sweat equity, and pretty soon what we really have is Federal dollars matching Federal dollars. I think he wants a clarification that the State match is really a product of the State. We could talk about this later, about if they get it from private sources or not, but that it is real money. I do not think I have a problem with that. He is right.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Yes.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is not specifying a specific mechanism by which the State does this. But what the gentleman is saying is, when it comes time to match the money, he expects the State to be there with real dollars, not funny dollars, someone else's dollars, so they place the same priority on this that we say we place on it?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Fortunately, some people are wealthy enough that they have created foundations. In our case, it is the Packard family.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. No, no.